Greedy Bastard

August 23, 2011 | Filed under Economics,Federal Budget | Posted by

Hey, remember Obama buddy Warren Buffett volunteering to pay higher taxes? And volunteering his fellow billionaires as well? Well, one of those billionaires is answering — and he’s not happy about Buffett’s generosity with other people’s money.

 

I have a simple solution: the Massachusetts method. Back in 2000, the voters pushed through a provision that cut the income tax from 5.85% to 5.3%. However, as a sop to those who opposed it, they left the old rate as an option so people who, like Warren Buffett, felt they owed the state more money than they were required to pay, could still give more. And in the years since, the percentage of those who do choose the higher rate has never even come close to one twentieth of one percent.

 

So, there’s an option the House Republicans can propose: put the Democrats’ last proposal for tax rates into a law — but strictly as an option. If taxpayers choose, they can pay the higher rate. But if they don’t, then they pay the current rate.

 

Who could oppose that?

 

 

« « The price of truth: S&P fires its CEO, replaces him with COO of Citibank
Lowest approval rating yet » »

Shortlink:

Posted by on August 23, 2011.
Filed under Economics, Federal Budget.


Both comments and pings are currently closed.
  • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

    I like that idea, Jay.  They can put their money where their mouth is – but it’s pretty clear that they won’t… if it’s THEIR money.

    Somehow, redistribution doesn’t sound all that hot when it’s your own wallet that’s being slimmed down.

    • Anonymous

      Exactly! It’s so much easier to say, “Bend over and smile” than to actually do it yourself.

  • Jeff Blogworthy

    I propose that anyone self-identifying as Democrat automatically pay 10 percent more in taxes. As a tithe to their God.

  • herddog505

    “Let’s all pay higher taxes!  You first…”

  • http://twitter.com/jfarrell005 John Farrell

    Jay, here is the text of an email I sent to local talk show hosts at WRKO last week when they were discussing Buffett’s position:

    Guys, one of the things that often gets missed when
    discussing Buffet’s claim that he should pay more taxes are his motivations,
    which I feel are entirely self serving.

     

    The Estate Tax –  He feels it should be
    increased

    One of the significant business segments for Berkshire
    Hathaway is the insurance business, most people don’t realize that the proceeds
    from a life insurance policy are not taxed by the federal government (http://tinyurl.com/3e2532w
    ). So why would Warren push for a high estate tax, could it
    be that he is trying to drive business to his insurance companies.

     

    Capital Gains Taxes- Again he would like to increase
    it

    Warren Buffet is a well know as a buy and hold value investor,
    he rarely sells the businesses he purchases. As you know, if you don’t sell you
    don’t incur capital gains, so any increase would have a very small REAL effect
    on his style of business.

     

    His claim that he only pays 17%

    This one is easy to debunk: his company, Berkshire Hathaway,
    of which he is the largest shareholder (aside from the Gates charitable trust),
    paid about 30% of its pretax income in taxes for 2010 (http://tinyurl.com/3cjkc8j
    ). If you own
    something, and that entity has to pay taxes, shouldn’t that amount be taken
    into account.

    • Anonymous

      It’s always the same with people like Buffet they are manipulators plain and simple. They rarely do anything for the good of anyone but themselves.

  • Anonymous

    With a “FairTax” approach, he’s just have to tell the millionaires and billionaires to spend more money, not raise the rate.   Hmmm.

  • Anonymous

    Golub would be more credible if he weren’t on the board of the warmongering American Enterprise Institute.  On the one hand cheerleading for huge wars, on the other opposing means to pay for them.

    Plus, Golub advocates for tax  increases for the bottom 50%:

    Almost half of all filers pay no income taxes at all. Clearly they earn less and should pay less. But they should pay something and have a stake in our government spending their money too.

    Jon Stewart did a great takedown of this kind of nonsense:

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare—the-poor-s-free-ride-is-over

    • Anonymous

      So the “poor” should get a free ride?  And just who the hell decides what’s “FAIR”?

      How about this, you don’t pay taxes, you don’t vote?  Let’s discuss the ‘fairness’ of that.  Maybe if folks had some skin in the game, they’d pay attention to what politicians spend money on.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net Anonymous

        “Fair” is seeming more and more like an obscene word.   Usually because when it’s evoked, it’s to justify a way to evade something someone doesn’t like.

    • Jeff Blogworthy

      Leave it to Chico to raise a straw man and a red herring at the same time.

      But the budget deal does reflect national priorities, for good or ill. It’s mostly a triumph of the welfare state over the Pentagon. Even before the deal, the Obama administration projected that — assuming continued withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan — defense spending would shrink to 15 percent of the budget by 2016. This would be the lowest share since before World War II. The deal’s cuts, potentially as much as $950 billion over a decade, would reduce that further.

      Meanwhile entitlement spending threatens to bankrupt us.

      • Anonymous

        This idea of “entitlement” spending makes me laugh.  As if Social Security and Medicare are something wrongful and greedy.

        If the state can’t care for the old and the sick, why have a state at all?   To protect the haves from the have-nots?

        • Jeff Blogworthy

          You must be joking. As if the state’s motivation is to care for the old and the sick. That’s a fairy tale line for rubes. The SS program is a ponzi scheme. In your world it is only the private swindler which must be held accountable. Government flimflammers are to be back slapped. Neither does the paternalistic nature of your comment escape notice. If the government were an actual parent it would be jailed for child neglect and abuse. The wrongness and greed of SS amd Medicare is evident in the rotten fruit it has borne. Imagine putting the question to future generations, if you are capable of such a stretch. Don’t rupture your cranium in the attempt. I understood I was getting screwed from the time I looked at the deductions from my first paycheck.

          • Anonymous

            Jeff, I am disappointed in you.   SS is no more a “Ponzi scheme” than the rest of AA+ or AAA rated US government debt. 

            There is $4.6 trillion in US government bonds in the SS old age trust fund.  This debt was paid for by the regressive FICA-OASDI payroll tax, which caps out at about $110,000.  If the top income had been indexed to inflation, a lot of SS problems would disappear, because the trust fund growth would have kept pace with inflation.

            Does anyone say that the $4.5 trillion in USG debt held by China and other foreign governments is a “Ponzi scheme?”  No.   Why should debt held by the American people be any less secure than that held by Chicoms?

            The reality is that people who say it’s a Ponzi scheme are the Ponzis – they want to engineer a slow-motion default on the SS trust fund obligations by reducing benefits to the creditors – the American wage earners who bought the debt.

            The attached graphic shows the amount of debt and who holds it.  Tell me why the American wage earner should not be paid back:

            One thing I would like to highlight is the large surplus funds in the Social Security Trust and others. These were ‘invested’ in a special type of intra-governmental Treasury note. These funds are not ‘gone’ anymore than a Treasury bond is ‘gone.’ It is a sovereign debt holding. If the US defaults on its debt, then it defaults. But let’s call it what it is. The Trust Funds are not the money that the government ‘owes to itself.’ It is a Trust fund, that is, money held by the government in Trust for others. The Trustees invested it in a special category of Treasury bonds that do not trade on the open market.So to somehow suggest that Social Security is bankrupt now because the government spent the funds on general obligations is to assert a violation of Trust, a fraud, and a selective default on the sovereign US debt. And do not think that the world would view it any other way, despite the spin put on it by faux economists, useful idiots, and mainstream propagandists for the money men.Where would you think they would put a Trust Fund of this size? In a passbook savings deposit account? Federal Reserve Notes? The stock market? It was given to the government to be invested in bonds that were judged to be the least risky form of storing that wealth.No, the real problem is that the US has malinvested too much of its revenue in too many fruitless and unfunded projects like wars, overseas military bases, and other subsides to oil companies, banks, and multinational corporations. The partnership between the money men, their corporations, and the government has allowed corruption to grow and prosper. 

            http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2011/08/us-deficit-in-one-picture.html

          • Jeff Blogworthy

            Spin. Blame the victim. Spin.

            You must literally be off your rocker. I know that leftists are accustomed to speaking their own realities but do try to come back from the ether.

            SS is a Ponzi scheme. You simply shuffle money taken from the pool around to various “investors” until the system collapses when the majority of “investors” finally expect to be paid. That is generally the tipping point when the scheme is recognized for what it is, as SS is now.

            “Social Security has passed a tipping point. For years it generated more
            revenue than it consumed, holding down the overall federal deficit and
            allowing Congress to spend more freely for other things. But those days
            are gone. Rather than lessening the federal deficit, Social Security has
            at last — as long predicted — become a drag on the government’s overall
            finances.”

            http://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/democrats-deny-social-securitys-red-ink/

            The only entity that has (literally) “engineered a default” is the U.S. government which raided the trust fund for every “social engineering” program it could concoct. There is no “trust fund” in any true sense of the word. Those are the words of the scam artist.

            “Tell me why the American wage earner should not be paid back:”

            This is a question built around lies. First, the idea that people will ever be “paid back” is a lie. No one alive today will ever be “paid back” what was stolen from them. As in all Ponzi schemes, the first “investors” made out like bandits while the stragglers get reamed. The SS scam is to dole out piecemeal payments (based on certain whimsical government standards) until the victim dies. As far as the state is concerned the sooner death comes after retirement the better. If SS is alowed to continue on its present course, we will see this death wish acted out in official policy I can assure you.

            Second, no one is proposing to default on SS payments to those now in the system. The proposals to phase out and privatize SS plan for keeping commitments to those already in the system. A fact which leftists purposely distort and ignore.

            Lastly, the flimsiest excuse for a retirement account in the private sector would be far more secure than the so-called social “security” that has been forced on us by government thieves.

          • Anonymous

            First,  current “payroll taxes” have nothing to do with current SS payments – those are paid out of the general government revenues, same as debt service to the Chinese.  Current payroll taxes buy bonds which are a loan to the USA.   

            Second, here’s another bit of bullshit in that piece:

            Don’t be confused by the fact that the trust funds are projected to continue growing for several more years. That’s because Treasury must still credit interest payments to the funds on the borrowings from earlier years. But unless taxes are increased or other spending is cut severely, the government will have to borrow from the public to pay the interest that it owes to the trust funds

            Yeah, the government will have to borrow, because it will have to borrow to meet the debt service on all debt obligations, like to the Chinese. 

          • Jeff Blogworthy

            Bullshit. Right. Bullshit = “stuff Chico doesn’t want to hear.”

            Who to believe? Chico or Mises? Chico or Mises? Hmm. Tough choice, but I’m going with Mises on this one.

            http://mises.org/daily/3469

            BTW, there is a key difference in SS and debt owed to the Chinese. From the article:

            “Think of this type of lending for a moment. The federal government is in debt to itself. Compare this to debt in the private sector. No business declares that it’s deep in debt because it loaned itself money. It’s the same with families. Parents don’t lay awake at night trying to figure out how to repay the money they loaned themselves. The government, however, thinks that it makes perfect sense to collect $100 of tax revenue, spend the $100, and then declare that it now owes itself $100. This scheme is not limited to Social Security.”

          • Anonymous

            More bullshit from Ponzi.  No, there is no “key difference” in the debt owed to the Chinese and the debt owed American workers.

            It’s not the government in debt to itself, it’s the government, as trustee, in debt to the American workers who paid into the SS trust fund through FICA.  Just as a private business acting as trustee for third parties could sell its own debt obligations to the trust.  There might be legal controls on self-dealing in the private sector, but is it really so far fetched that an Apple-run pension fund would have Apple bonds in its portfolio?

            You do understand the concept of a trust and the obligations of a trustee, I hope.  In Social Security, the government acts as investment agent, collecting money for the purchase of debt instruments, as trustee for the debt instruments, and as obligor for the debt instruments. 

            If they credit $100 in bonds to the SS trust fund, and spend the cash on current expenditure, that means nothing.  A $100 bond obligation of the USG for SS is still a treasury obligation entitled to the full faith and credit of the United States. 

    • Anonymous

      So rather than refute anything he said…

    • jim_m

      Everyone but the very most poor should pay at least some taxes.

      Chico, are you now going to claim that everyone up to the 50th percentile are now in poverty?  That’s absurd in the extreme. 

      One of the most significant problems we have in this country is that too few people pay taxes.  It’s rather easy to assert that others should pay more when you never have to pay anything.  If more people paid taxes then more people would pay attention to how that tax money is spent.  It’s also very easy to ignore how the government misspends other people’s money.

      And make no mistake, collecting taxes on the bottom 50% is not going to significantly boost he treasury.  But as Biden said, it’s time to have some “Skin in the game”.  People who pay taxes will be more engaged and engaged in a responsible way. What we are talking about is fairness and the dems are all about fairness aren’t they. (OK we know that the whole fairness meme is a load of BS but that doesn’t mean that fairness doesn’t have its applications)

      • Anonymous

        I suspect that a lot of the “bottom 50 paying no taxes” is because of the Earned Income Tax Credit.

        Median household income is about $45,000.  Median household size is around 2.6 now, but that could be a single parent with kids.   $45,000 would provide a comfortable living for a small family in lots of places, but those places also don’t have a lot of $45,000 jobs.  Remember that the median household income is not strictly linked to median household size, so there are large families with incomes of $45,000 or less.

        There are millions of people in this country who have the option of either working or collecting benefits, e.g. single moms.  Things like the ETIC probably save money by encouraging work over welfare. 

        • Anonymous

          My ex gets 48k/year for breathing and lives quite comfortably without the slightest attempt at working to increase her income, yet complains about her taxes.  She did not vote for Obama.  Or Bush.  Or McCain.  Go figure.

  • Anonymous

    Warren is a freaking hypocrite.  All that money, all those brains to make money; yet he can’t figure out how to GIVE money to the government.  Lying sack of crap!

    Warren’s problem is that he wants to be admired.  You’ll note that he isn’t giving a lot of money away right now.  Says he’ll do that when he dies (again looking for admiration).  Warren’s smart enough to know he can’t take it with him.

    But MONEY = INFLUENCE = POWER.  And good ‘ol Warren isn’t giving any of that up.  Just like a true liberal. 

    Hey Warren!  The One says you should give up that corporate jet.  Have you sold it yet?

  • Anonymous

    At some point, liberals decided it was more noble to demand that other people sacrifice, then to make any actual sacrifice of their own.

    Nobody is forcing Buffet or any other liberal billionaire to hire all of those tax attorneys.If he really wants to pay more its pretty easy for him to do so.

    • Anonymous

      Yep.  All Warren has to do is use the Short Form.

  • Anonymous

    Easy to push for higher taxes when you’re worth millions or billions.
    And doesn’t Buffet have most of his wealth in tax exempt foundations?

    But higher taxes are NOT the solution.
    If anything, the beast that the federal govt has become needs to be starved back into reality.
    Sure, sounds cruel.
    So doesn’t bankruptcy.

  • Meiji Man

    Pay.gov, has an online site to pay extra money to the federal government. may I suggest that Mr. Buffett whip out his American Express Black Card, and make a payment of an amount he feels is fair and equitable. In fact, may I suggest anyone else who feels that they are not paying their fair share make a similar contribution.